IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v64y2010i03p443-479_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reality Asserts Itself: Public Opinion on Iraq and the Elasticity of Reality

Author

Listed:
  • Baum, Matthew A.
  • Groeling, Tim

Abstract

Prevailing theories hold that U.S. public support for a war depends primarily on its degree of success, U.S. casualties, or conflict goals. Yet, research into the framing of foreign policy shows that public perceptions concerning each of these factors are often endogenous and malleable by elites. In this article, we argue that both elite rhetoric and the situation on the ground in the conflict affect public opinion, but the qualities that make such information persuasive vary over time and with circumstances. Early in a conflict, elites (especially the president) have an informational advantage that renders public perceptions of “reality” very elastic. As events unfold and as the public gathers more information, this elasticity recedes, allowing alternative frames to challenge the administration's preferred frame. We predict that over time the marginal impact of elite rhetoric and reality will decrease, although a sustained change in events may eventually restore their influence. We test our argument through a content analysis of news coverage of the Iraq war from 2003 through 2007, an original survey of public attitudes regarding Iraq, and partially disaggregated data from more than 200 surveys of public opinion on the war.

Suggested Citation

  • Baum, Matthew A. & Groeling, Tim, 2010. "Reality Asserts Itself: Public Opinion on Iraq and the Elasticity of Reality," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(3), pages 443-479, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:64:y:2010:i:03:p:443-479_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818310000172/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dara Kay Cohen & Connor Huff & Robert Schub, 2021. "At War and at Home: The Consequences of US Women Combat Casualties," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(4), pages 647-671, April.
    2. Philip Paolino, 2017. "Surprising Events and Surprising Opinions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(8), pages 1795-1815, September.
    3. John Kuk & Deborah Seligsohn & Jiakun Jack Zhang, 2022. "The partisan divide in U.S. congressional communications after the China shock," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 494-526, July.
    4. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    5. Sarah Maxey, 2021. "Limited Spin: When the Public Punishes Leaders Who Lie about Military Action," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(2-3), pages 283-312, February.
    6. Kelly Morrison, 2024. "Named and Shamed: International Advocacy and Public Support for Repressive Leaders," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 68(2-3), pages 294-321, March.
    7. A. Burcu Bayram & Todd Shields, 2021. "Who Trusts the WHO? Heuristics and Americans’ Trust in the World Health Organization During the COVID‐19 Pandemic," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2312-2330, September.
    8. Strong, James, 2015. "Why parliament now decides on war: tracing the growth of the parliamentary prerogative through Syria, Libya and Iraq," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57325, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:64:y:2010:i:03:p:443-479_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.